# Rb. Overijssel - ZWO 25/2142

- Type: Case Law
- Source: District Court Overijssel
- Date: 2026-07-24
- Original: https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=Rb._Overijssel_-_ZWO_25/2142
- Canonical: https://overview.legal/posts/187481
- Topics: Personal Data, Right of Access Procedures, Controllers

## Summary

Facts — On 5 January 2025, the data subject submitted an access request to the Chief of Police, the controller, concerning her personal data for the period between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2017. In particular, she requested information about searches carried out using her Citizen Service Number in the Basic Registration of Persons. On 10 February 2025, the controller extended the deadline for deciding on the request by eight weeks. Since the controller considered it unclear whether the request had been submitted under Article 15 GDPR or Article 25 of the Police Data Act (Wet politiegegevens (Wpg)), it contacted the data subject by telephone. On 14 April 2025, the controller assessed the request under Article 15 GDPR and rejected it on the ground that it had not processed the data subject’s personal data during the relevant period. The data subject lodged an objection against this decision. On 13 June 2025, the controller rejected the objection and upheld its initial decision. Since the decision did not contain information on the available legal remedies, the controller sent it again on 18 June 2025 with the relevant appeal clause. On 29 July 2025, the data subject appealed to the District Court of Overijssel. She argued that the controller should have understood from the content and context of her request that it had been submitted under Article 25 Wpg rather than Article 15 GDPR. In particular, the request referred to an earlier access request that the controller had processed under the Wpg. Holding — The Court held that the controller should have assessed the access request under Article 25 Wpg rather than Article 15 GDPR. The content and context of a request determine its legal classification, irrespective of the legal basis identified by the applicant. The request referred to an earlier request processed under the Wpg and sought a similar overview for a different period. Moreover, the Wpg constitutes the specific legal framework applicable to personal data processed by the police for public-security purposes and therefore takes precedence over the GDPR. The Court declared the appeal well-founded, annulled the contested decision and revoked the initial decision. Since decisions under Article 25 Wpg are not subject to an administrative objection procedure, it ordered the controller to issue a new primary decision under the Wpg. No fine was imposed.

## Full text

ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:4534 Share this ruling Instance District Court of Overijssel Date of ruling July 24, 2026 Date of publication July 31, 2026 Case Number ak_25_2142 Areas of Law Administrative Procedure Law Special Features First Instance – Single-Judge Panel Summary This ruling concerns the plaintiff’s request to the police chief for access to her personal data. The Chief of Police considered this access request and assessed it on the basis of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), subsequently rejecting it on the grounds that the claimant’s personal data had not been processed by the Chief of Police. The plaintiff disagrees with this judgement. The court ruled that the Chief of Police wrongly used the GDPR as the legal basis for assessing the plaintiff’s access request. The plaintiff’s claim is therefore upheld, and the appeal is thus well-founded. Sources Rechtspraak.nl Annotated Judgment Judgment COURT OF OVERIJSSEL Seat: Zwolle Administrative Law Case No.: ZWO 25/2142 Judgment of the Single-Judge Chamber in the case between [Plaintiff], of [place of residence], hereinafter: [Plaintiff] and the Chief of Police hereinafter: the Chief of Police. 1 Summary 1.1. This judgment concerns [Plaintiff]’s request to the Chief of Police for access to her personal data. The Chief of Police considered this access request and assessed it in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), subsequently rejecting it on the grounds that [Plaintiff]’s personal data had not been processed by the Chief of Police. [Plaintiff] disagrees with this decision. She argues that it must have been clear to the Chief of Police that she submitted the access request under the Police Data Act (Wpg) and not under the GDPR. Based on the grounds for appeal, the court assesses the police chief’s decision. 1.2. The court issues a judgement finding that the police chief wrongly used the GDPR as the legal basis for assessing [the plaintiff]’s access request. [Plaintiff] is therefore found to be correct, and the appeal is thus well-founded. Below, the court explains how it reached this judgement and what the consequences of this judgement are. 2 Facts and Course of the Proceedings 2.1. On January 5, 2025, [the plaintiff] submitted a request to the police chief for access to her personal data for the period from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017. This concerns queries made during this period based on her Citizen Service Number (BSN) in the Basic Registration of Persons (BRP). 2.2. In a letter dated February 10, 2025, the Chief of Police extended the deadline for deciding on the access request by eight weeks. 2.3. Because it was unclear to the Chief of Police whether the access request was made pursuant to Article 15 of the GDPR or Article 25 of the Wpg, he arranged for [the claimant] to be contacted by telephone. In the decision of April 14, 2025 (the initial decision), the Chief of Police assessed the access request pursuant to Article 15 of the GDPR and rejected it on the grounds that the claimant’s personal data had not been processed by the Chief of Police during the specified period. 2.5. [Plaintiff] filed an objection to this decision. 2.6. In the decision of June 13, 2025 (the contested decision) regarding [Plaintiff]’s objection, the Chief of Police upheld the rejection of the request. Because the appeal clause was missing from the contested decision, the Chief of Police subsequently sent it on June 18, 2025. On July 29, 2025, [the plaintiff] filed an appeal against the contested decision. The Chief of Police responded with a statement of defense. 2.8. [The plaintiff] is exempt from the obligation to pay court fees due to inability to pay. 2.9. The court heard the appeal at a hearing on July 2, 2026. [Plaintiff] was present at the hearing, and the Chief of Police was represented by [name]. 3 The Grounds for the Appeal and the Defense 3.1. First, [Plaintiff] argues that the initial decision was made one week too late. Furthermore, according to [Plaintiff], it must have been clear to the Chief of Police that the access request was made pursuant to the Wpg and not pursuant to the GDPR. After all, [plaintiff] included the reference number and case number of her earlier request under the Wpg to ensure the access request could be traced. The police chief wrongly inferred from the telephone conversation that [the claimant] intended to request access under the GDPR. This is also an illogical conclusion because it is not possible to request police data under the GDPR. In this way, the access request was wrongfully altered unilaterally. Furthermore, the police chief should not have interviewed someone with a cognitive impairment, such as [the plaintiff], over the phone. 3.2. In the answer, the police chief requests that [the plaintiff]’s appeal be declared inadmissible because no substantive grounds for appeal have been raised. 4 Assessment by the Court 4.1. Before the Court proceeds to assess the lawfulness of the contested decision based on the grounds for appeal, the Court finds that the notice of appeal was filed four days late. At the hearing, it became clear that the parties do not dispute that there was an excusable failure to meet the deadline because the appeal clause was missing from the contested decision and was communicated to [the plaintiff] more than four days later. The court agrees with the parties’ positions and issues a judgement finding that there has been an excusable failure to meet the deadline. The appeal is therefore admissible. 4.2. Unlike the police chief, the court has identified (two) grounds for appeal. The court will therefore dismiss the defense of inadmissibility on this point. 4.3. Timeliness of the Initial Decision 4.3.1. Regarding the ground for appeal that the initial decision was made too late, the court finds that this decision was indeed made after the decision deadline had expired. However, this has no consequences because the decision deadline is a procedural deadline and [the plaintiff] did not serve a notice of default to compel the police chief to make a decision. In the court’s judgement, this ground is therefore without merit. Basis for the Access Request 4.4.1. The court does agree with [the plaintiff] that, in assessing and deciding on the access request, the police chief should have applied (article 25 of) the Wpg rather than the GDPR. It is noted that case law from the Administrative Law Section of the Council of State indicates that the content and context of an access request determine its legal classification, rather than the designation chosen by the applicant (ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:483). According to the police chief, [the plaintiff] indicated during a telephone conversation, when asked, that she intended to submit an access request within the meaning of the GDPR. It has not become clear, not even at the hearing, exactly what was discussed during this telephone conversation and how and in what context [the plaintiff] specifically expressed herself regarding the legal basis of the access request. The court further finds that the text of the access request itself does not indicate that this request was made within the meaning of the GDPR. In this request, [the plaintiff] instead refers to an earlier request she had made, on which the police chief did rule pursuant to the Wpg and in connection with which the police chief provided [the plaintiff] with a summary of data. According to the court’s judgement, under those circumstances, it should therefore have been clear to the Chief of Police that [the plaintiff] intended to obtain the same type of overview within the meaning of the Wpg, this time containing data covering a different period, and thus that she was making the same type of request for that purpose. Furthermore, it is not the GDPR but (Article 25 of) the Wpg that constitutes the legal basis for the processing of personal data for the purposes of the police’s public safety duties. As such, the Wpg constitutes special and/or more specific legislation that, in principle, takes precedence over the GDPR (more general legislation). This is evident from the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the amendment to the Wpg to comply with EU Directive 2016/680.1 In light of this as well, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, it would have been appropriate for the Chief of Police to decide on the access request based on the Wpg. 4.4.2. In light of the foregoing, the court’s judgement is that, in the contested decision, the police chief wrongly assessed [the plaintiff’s] access request on the basis of the GDPR rather than the Wpg. Since this ground for appeal is valid, the court will declare the appeal well-founded and annul the contested decision. In that case, the Chief of Police would, in principle, have to issue a new decision on [the plaintiff’s] objection to the original decision. However, since there is no avenue for objection with respect to a decision on an access request under Article 25 of the Wpg and a direct appeal to the administrative court is available,² the court, pursuant to Article 8:72, paragraph 3, of the Awb, rule on the matter itself to that extent by revoking the initial decision. As a result, the police chief must issue a new (initial) decision on the access request, which—as the court will determine—must take into account the considerations set forth in this judgment. 5 Conclusion and Consequences 5.1. The appeal is well-founded. This means that [the plaintiff] prevails. The contested decision is set aside because the Chief of Police wrongly used the GDPR instead of the Wpg as the legal basis for assessing and deciding on [the plaintiff’s] access request. The court itself will rule on the matter by revoking the primary decision, as there is no right to appeal in the case of an access request under Article 25 of the Wpg. As a result, the police chief must issue a new (primary) decision on the access request, which—as the court will determine—must take into account the considerations set forth in this judgment. Because [the plaintiff] has not paid the court filing fee, the court sees no reason to order the chief of police to reimburse the court filing fee. There are no other litigation costs eligible for reimbursement. 6 Decision The court: - declares the appeal well-founded; - sets aside the contested decision; - revokes the original decision; and - orders the Chief of Police to rule on the access request in accordance with this judgment. This judgment was rendered by M. van Berlo, Esq., judge, in the presence of B.A.G. Bulte, Esq., court clerk. Pronounced in open court on

---
Generated by overview.legal · https://overview.legal/posts/187481 · 2026-08-06